Doubling Fuel Economy Despite Economic Turmoil

By Jeff St. John

Automakers can double the fuel economy of their fleets by 2050 and save the world a lot of oil and greenhouse-gas emissions, if they start right away on a "radical but achievable agenda" – and they don't need to go all-electric to do it.

That's the assessment of the Global Fuel Economy Initiative, a group of international agencies that made their appeal in a report to automakers Wednesday at the Geneva Motor Show.

The group said its initiatives could save the planet six billion barrels of oil per year by 2050 and lead to a 2-gigaton reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, even if miles driven globally double by 2050.

Automakers won't have to switch wholesale to cars powered by electricity or hydrogen to get there, the group claimed. Just retooling vehicles to be built with lighter materials, more efficient tires and other components and better engines and drive trains could do the trick, the group said.

Still, "full hybridization of a much wider range of vehicles" to be powered partly by electricity would be a main feature of the goal of improving new cars' fuel economy by 30 percent by 2020 and by 50 percent by 2030, another of the group's goals, it said.

Now the question is, will automakers be able to take up the challenge? The ongoing economic recession is driving down auto sales and pushing some automakers to the brink of bankruptcy (see Showing Off Green Cars Amid Economic Gloom), casting some doubts on their pledges to build more fuel-efficient fleets.

While troubled American automakers General Motors (GM) and Chrysler have promised to increase their fleets' fuel economy with hybrid-electric and all-electric vehicles to come, they also have asked the federal government for two multi-billion dollar rounds of aid to avoid potential insolvency (see U.S. Automakers Get Federal Bailout).

And Toyota (TM), which leads the hybrid car market with its Prius, has seen sales of the fuel-efficient vehicle plummet along with sales overall, and said it expects last year to bring the company its first operating loss in 70 years (see Toyota to Build All-Electric Car by 2012).

But the Global Fuel Economy Initiative said Wednesday that it sees the recession as a chance for governments to pressure automakers to adopt its fuel-efficiency measures.

"In confronting the economic recession this is a real opportunity for governments to combine support for the auto industry with measures to achieve environmental and energy policy goals," said Nobuo Tanaka, executive director of the International Energy Agency, a member of the initiative.

Other members include the United Nations Environment Program, the International Transport Forum and the F.I.A. Foundation.

The group has said it will meet with automakers in Geneva, and wants to get started right away by helping governments form national fuel economy policies through four pilot projects.

The group didn't say which countries it was targeting, but did highlight that the global car fleet is expected to triple by 2050, with four-fifths of that growth to come in developing countries.

President Barack Obama has called for the U.S. auto fleet to improve fuel efficiency by 40 percent by 2020 (see Obama: Cars Need to Improve Gas Mileage by 40%). And the European Union in December approved measures for new vehicles to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions by 18 percent by 2015.

Comments

[ANDY K:]

More Global Warming hysteria- kind of like the Chicken Little sky is falling.
Data from the Science and Enviromental Policy Project published by the Hearland Institute (heartland.org) provides comprehensive DATA that "Nature, Not human activity, rules the climate".
I guess it's easier to spout hearsay from TV anchors and other pseudo scientists that have a vested interest and want to make money on study grants or the carbon cap and trade boondoggle.

Mar 04 03:19 PM

[Thadeus Tho...:]

@Andy K

I have to agree, it is difficult to sort out the self promotion going on in "Going Green" segment. I like a nice car or truck and performance and luxury have seduced many of us over the years including me. Madison Ave. advertising has done it's utmost to "help" us decide that we need more also.

So maybe a balanced approach is in order here. I know most of us who aren't contractors or something don't need a big truck or SUV to get to work every day. If each of us could car pool or at least buy and use a car that gets at least 22 - 24 mpg city and 27 - 40 mpg highway we would save ourselves some gas money and the environment.

It is interesting that so many "crossover" SUVs have appeared, but with not much better fuel economy than their larger counter parts. Too many people have to have the Lexus or Infinity to show they are upscale and have "arrived".
That being said, I've known quite a few very affluent people who drive small economy cars which they keep for at least 5 -7 years. They consider it foolish to put much money into something that starts to rust, degrade, and loose money the instant you start driving it. That is part of why they have money :)

Mar 04 03:58 PM

[Mister Jimmy:]

Those that advance this type of thinking generally sit at a computer all day and obviously do not need a truck to make a living. Electric and hydrogen powered vehicles do not (at least at this time) generate the kind of horsepower that construction workers and farmers need to haul drywall, lumber, feed stocks, tools, etc. Electric vehicles will, however, work perfectly well to move them from their desk chairs to their Lazy Boys.

Mar 04 04:00 PM

[2222:]

Hey Mister Jim,

Couldn't agree more that this group pushed a button at their desk to make some headlines. I think you are wrong on HP. With Electric vehicles the torque available is more important and with Hydrogen and a fuel cell you can get all the torque you need. That Equinox that GM has been driving around has 235 ft/lbs. The thing is a blast to drive and gets nearly 50 miles per gallon with zero emissions in an SUV. I read they have already gotten a million kilometers in customer hands. I want one in red right now - forget about waiting till 2050. We could be off imported pertrleum well before that if we would make it a national priority to switch to Hydrogen. Buy American - Buy GM - get me a return on my tax dollars.

Mar 04 04:23 PM

[Mike InMich:]

Well, I'm glad the UN is finally chiming in on this science. Even professor Heywood from MIT is saying we can increase fuel economy by 50% without even trying. I read the cited paper and Haywood says we should use 6 speed transmissions and CVTs. Guess what, the 2005 Ford 500 and Freestyle had a CVT and it didn't get anything. Almost all Ford's already have 6 speeds. The paper did mention we'd have to downsize the cars a bit. Duh! With that logic we could get even more so called efficiency if we all rode bicycles.

Try again prof. Not that I blame you since you can't get any government funding for telling the truth any more.

Let's look at this another way. If it was so easy would not the auto companies be doing it as they got whacked this summer by customer demand for fuel economy? And if it is so easy why are Toyota and Ford and others introducing hybrids that cost $8000 more than non-hybrids, and I beleive they still loose money. If they knew the magic recipes that the Global Fuel Economy initiative and Prof.Haywood have they could get more fuel economy without even trying, and clean up in car sales.

Maybe there is a difference between acadamia, the third world dominated UN, belteway bandits, and REALITY!

Mar 04 04:40 PM

[Cleantech:]

Double fleet mileage efficiency by 2050, how about 2020 instead? Why wait 40 years just to double the MPG fleet average. In that time frame, fossil fueled engines should have long since been replaced electric propulsion drivetrains. We can double the fleet mileage with existing PHEV (plug-in) hybrid technology available today. Improvements in battery chemistry, fuel cell technology, power management systems over the next several years will show the way, from Fisker to Tesla, the majors will follow, because they have no choice now but to innovate.

Mar 05 01:23 AM

[john s. gordon:]

weight saving is nice as long as you don't compromise safety.

a certain percentage of the buyers will still want a heavier vehicle because it is 'safer'. occupants of an E150 van will suffer less injury when attacked by a honda.
> jack

Mar 05 09:13 AM

[Paul Killinger:]

This is easy to say for all the UN and Washington types who don't know how to start a lawnmower. It's quite another thing to do in the real world.

But there's no secret to it. Their plan is for all of us to be driving mini
Smart Cars. For those of us don't like that idea, be sure to show up for the next election.

In the meantime, go find a late model used car you like before their prices go through the roof. (They've begun to increase already. But I wouldn't recommend a domestic- you're going to be driving it for next several years.

Mar 05 09:20 AM

[jack kreg:]

the country (our USA) needs:
-a low cost car
-which is available with todays technology,
-using a low cost fuel.

the solution is LNG powered transportation fleet, cars, buses, trucks, maybe trains.

LNG is cheap and getting cheaper,
LNG is abundant in the USA, (hire American energy workers)

An LNG powered car is lower cost than hybrid, and we have not even begun to address the future crisis of what to do with aging battery's, a sunk expense when buying over priced hybrids.

And please, keep the climate chat to yourself.

Mar 05 12:13 PM

[a. palmer jr.:]

I don't see anything wrong with trying to get away from gasoline vehicles. If they ever get an all-electric car that will please Americans look at all the savings we'll see. You can't imagine how many more parts there are on gas cars as compared to electrics. But I'm sure if American car companies build electrics they'll throw a big bunch of equipment and junk on them to make them cost more. Toyota and Nissan will probably be smarter.

Mar 05 11:42 PM